Participants holding the heavier clipboard found it more important for the committee to listen to students' opinions regarding size of grants to study abroad than did participants given the light clipboard.

Type of Replication Attempted

Fairly Direct Replication

Result Type

Failure to Replicate

Difference?

No

Number of Subjects

60

Number of Subjects in Original Study

51

Year in which Replication Attempt was Made

2013

Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)

Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman

Detailed Description of Method/Results

Participants were approached in public locations around campus by one of the student researchers. Half of them (randomly determined) were handed a clipboard with one piece of paper attached (light condition). The other half were handed a clipboard with a one-subject spiral notebook and one piece of paper attached (heavy condition). The piece of paper informed participants that the University was considering shortening winter break and then asked them to rate how important it was for the administration to listen to students' opinions about this issue (1=not at all and 7=very much).
The results were not significant. Ratings of participants in the heavy condition (M=6.13, SD=1.33) did not differ from those of participants in the light condition (M= 5.77, SD=1.48), t<1 . Our results could have been affected by the fact that most participants had strong views on the issue. In fact, most (53%) rated the issue as maximally important (7 on a 7-point scale). Nevertheless, student researchers in the same class last semester did replicate the original results with the same question we used.

Any Known Methodological Differences (between original and present study)?

We had a bigger sample size than was used in the original study. Also we used a different question that was more pertinent to our campus. Our participants were enrolled in an American university whereas participants in the original study were enrolled in a Dutch university.

Email of Investigator

Name of individuals who actually carried out the project

Morrisa Gold, Rebecca Hadley and Chloe Ring under the supervision of Kimberly Daubman

Location of Project

Various public locations around Bucknell University campus.

Characteristics of Subjects (subject pool, paid, etc.)

University students from subject poolUndergraduate students who were not paid and were not part of the General Psychology subject pool.

Where did these subjects reside?

United States

Was this a Class Project?

Yes

Further Details of Results as pdf

Additional Comments

Email of Original Investigator

Quantitive Information

I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have
obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.